Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Verizon's answer to lawsuits?

Tags:
  • Cingular
  • Bluetooth
  • Verizon
  • Internet Service Providers
Last response: in Network Providers
Share
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 4:56:34 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Rather than argue over what folks' Bluetooth expectations are/should be,
and what the wording is on their website and what salesman/brochures say
about Bluetooth:

VerizonWireless will respond:

You have a 15 day trial period with the phone which should have given
you ample opportunity to discover any real/perceived/imagined
shortcomings. "We provide a 15-day satisfaction guarantee on any product
you buy from us."

More about : verizon answer lawsuits

Anonymous
January 15, 2005 4:56:35 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 08:56:34 -0500, Jack Zwick wrote
(in article <jzwick3-59F336.07550015012005@news1.west.earthlink.net>):

> Subject: Verizon's answer to lawsuits?
> From: Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com>
> Date: Today 8:56 AM
> Newsgroups: alt.cellular.cingular, alt.cellular.verizon
>
> Rather than argue over what folks' Bluetooth expectations are/should be,
> and what the wording is on their website and what salesman/brochures say
> about Bluetooth:
>
> VerizonWireless will respond:
>
> You have a 15 day trial period with the phone which should have given
> you ample opportunity to discover any real/perceived/imagined
> shortcomings. "We provide a 15-day satisfaction guarantee on any product
> you buy from us."

FWIW: I've had sales folks tell me outright "Oh yea, feature X will
definitely be support in 3-6 months ... once we get the bugs out of it."

Usually they are blowing sunshine up your butt, but in this case if they did
just they then they may have inadvertently created this problem.

(I never asked them to put such remarks in writing because I knew they were
full of it .... but if someone believed them at face value ....)
January 15, 2005 6:29:11 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Just because they give a very short 15 day return policy, doesn't mean they
can false advertise to the masses. Hell, if that's the case...I'll open up a
business and false advertise all the products and services sell to make some
volume sales and then when there's a problem or a dispute I'll respond with:

"You have a 15 day trial period with the phone which should have given
you ample opportunity to discover any real/perceived/imagined
shortcomings. "We provide a 15-day satisfaction guarantee on any product
you buy from us."

Hey, all Verizon will do is give the opposition free cell phone service for
life and there goes the case. Yes, that happens.




"Jack Zwick" <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:jzwick3-59F336.07550015012005@news1.west.earthlink.net...
> Rather than argue over what folks' Bluetooth expectations are/should be,
> and what the wording is on their website and what salesman/brochures say
> about Bluetooth:
>
> VerizonWireless will respond:
>
> You have a 15 day trial period with the phone which should have given
> you ample opportunity to discover any real/perceived/imagined
> shortcomings. "We provide a 15-day satisfaction guarantee on any product
> you buy from us."
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 12:50:45 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Jack Zwick wrote:
> Rather than argue over what folks' Bluetooth expectations are/should be,
> and what the wording is on their website and what salesman/brochures say
> about Bluetooth:
>
> VerizonWireless will respond:
>
> You have a 15 day trial period with the phone which should have given
> you ample opportunity to discover any real/perceived/imagined
> shortcomings. "We provide a 15-day satisfaction guarantee on any product
> you buy from us."

Well, it WOULD be pretty easy to determine whether the required features are
present within 15 minutes. I agree with your comments elsewhere that Verizon is
marketing BT capabilities of the Moto 710 in a misleading manner, but the
opportunity does exist to test the phone, discover it's not what you need, and
cancel or try another phone.

--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"In case anyone was wondering, that big glowing globe above the Victor
Valley is the sun." -Victorville _Daily Press_ on the unusually large
amount of rain the Southland has gotten this winter (January 12th, 2005)
January 16, 2005 6:26:06 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

False advertising is illegal, no?
People are buying this phone on the premise on what they've read...not what
they think will happen when they test it.

"Steve Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
news:cscv3g$lgh$1@ratbert.glorb.com...
> Jack Zwick wrote:
> > Rather than argue over what folks' Bluetooth expectations are/should be,
> > and what the wording is on their website and what salesman/brochures say
> > about Bluetooth:
> >
> > VerizonWireless will respond:
> >
> > You have a 15 day trial period with the phone which should have given
> > you ample opportunity to discover any real/perceived/imagined
> > shortcomings. "We provide a 15-day satisfaction guarantee on any product
> > you buy from us."
>
> Well, it WOULD be pretty easy to determine whether the required features
are
> present within 15 minutes. I agree with your comments elsewhere that
Verizon is
> marketing BT capabilities of the Moto 710 in a misleading manner, but the
> opportunity does exist to test the phone, discover it's not what you need,
and
> cancel or try another phone.
>
> --
> JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
> Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
>
> "In case anyone was wondering, that big glowing globe above the Victor
> Valley is the sun." -Victorville _Daily Press_ on the unusually large
> amount of rain the Southland has gotten this winter (January 12th, 2005)
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 6:26:07 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

xman@thedripper.com wrote:
> False advertising is illegal, no?
> People are buying this phone on the premise on what they've read...not what
> they think will happen when they test it.

If you can return the phone without penalty, what's the problem?

If you can return the phone and not be out any money or be locked into a
contract, what have you lost?

Yes, I think Verizon should fix its advertising. However, they do at least give
you an out.

--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"In case anyone was wondering, that big glowing globe above the Victor
Valley is the sun." -Victorville _Daily Press_ on the unusually large
amount of rain the Southland has gotten this winter (January 12th, 2005)
January 17, 2005 12:22:42 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

And for those that didn't have enough time to test their hardware out should
suffer based upon that false advertising? You seem very loose and very
passive about Verizon's false advertising..just as long as there's an out
isn't good enough for some one that missed the very short 15day deadline.


"Steve Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
news:csem4g$4pc$2@ratbert.glorb.com...
> xman@thedripper.com wrote:
> > False advertising is illegal, no?
> > People are buying this phone on the premise on what they've read...not
what
> > they think will happen when they test it.
>
> If you can return the phone without penalty, what's the problem?
>
> If you can return the phone and not be out any money or be locked into a
> contract, what have you lost?
>
> Yes, I think Verizon should fix its advertising. However, they do at least
give
> you an out.
>
> --
> JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
> Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
>
> "In case anyone was wondering, that big glowing globe above the Victor
> Valley is the sun." -Victorville _Daily Press_ on the unusually large
> amount of rain the Southland has gotten this winter (January 12th, 2005)
Anonymous
January 17, 2005 12:22:43 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

xman@thedripper.com wrote:
> And for those that didn't have enough time to test their hardware

How long does it take to set up something like this?

GMAFB.

--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"In case anyone was wondering, that big glowing globe above the Victor
Valley is the sun." -Victorville _Daily Press_ on the unusually large
amount of rain the Southland has gotten this winter (January 12th, 2005)
Anonymous
January 17, 2005 11:35:07 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

In news:10um8bltb2ft295@corp.supernews.com,
xman@thedripper.com <xman@thedripper.com> typed:
> And for those that didn't have enough time to test their hardware out
> should suffer based upon that false advertising? You seem very loose
> and very passive about Verizon's false advertising..just as long as
> there's an out isn't good enough for some one that missed the very
> short 15day deadline.
>
>
> "Steve Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
> news:csem4g$4pc$2@ratbert.glorb.com...
>> xman@thedripper.com wrote:
>>> False advertising is illegal, no?
>>> People are buying this phone on the premise on what they've
>>> read...not what they think will happen when they test it.
>>
>> If you can return the phone without penalty, what's the problem?
>>
>> If you can return the phone and not be out any money or be locked
>> into a contract, what have you lost?
>>
>> Yes, I think Verizon should fix its advertising. However, they do at
>> least give you an out.
>>
>> --
>> JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET
>> (4638) Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP:
>> 0xE3AE35ED
>>
>> "In case anyone was wondering, that big glowing globe above the
>> Victor Valley is the sun." -Victorville _Daily Press_ on the
>> unusually large amount of rain the Southland has gotten this winter
>> (January 12th, 2005)

When we signed up for VZW AC and got new phones - we made full use of the 15
day trial. We planned ahead so we could try the phones locally - then took
a three day raod trip to check where we go most often. That way we were
fairly sure that VZW AC would work where we wanted to use our phones - and -
got to do a lot of visiting with friends and family!
Anonymous
January 18, 2005 9:58:36 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <10uljevl4l7g27c@corp.supernews.com> on Sun, 16 Jan 2005 15:26:06 -0500,
<xman@thedripper.com> wrote:

>False advertising is illegal, no?

Yes, but this isn't that.

>People are buying this phone on the premise on what they've read...not what
>they think will happen when they test it.

I see no evidence of that.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
Anonymous
January 18, 2005 9:59:16 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <10um8bltb2ft295@corp.supernews.com> on Sun, 16 Jan 2005 21:22:42 -0500,
<xman@thedripper.com> wrote:

>And for those that didn't have enough time to test their hardware out should
>suffer based upon that false advertising?

Yes.

>You seem very loose and very
>passive about Verizon's false advertising..just as long as there's an out
>isn't good enough for some one that missed the very short 15day deadline.

If they can't do that, then don't buy.

>"Steve Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
>news:csem4g$4pc$2@ratbert.glorb.com...
>> xman@thedripper.com wrote:
>> > False advertising is illegal, no?
>> > People are buying this phone on the premise on what they've read...not
>what
>> > they think will happen when they test it.
>>
>> If you can return the phone without penalty, what's the problem?
>>
>> If you can return the phone and not be out any money or be locked into a
>> contract, what have you lost?
>>
>> Yes, I think Verizon should fix its advertising. However, they do at least
>give
>> you an out.
>>
>> --
>> JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
>> Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
>>
>> "In case anyone was wondering, that big glowing globe above the Victor
>> Valley is the sun." -Victorville _Daily Press_ on the unusually large
>> amount of rain the Southland has gotten this winter (January 12th, 2005)
>

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
Anonymous
January 20, 2005 3:45:11 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

>
> "John Navas" <jnavas@sonic.net> wrote in message
> news:ws2Hd.2573$m31.31231@typhoon.sonic.net...

> >
> > In <10uljevl4l7g27c@corp.supernews.com> on Sun, 16 Jan 2005
> 15:26:06 -0500,
> > <xman@thedripper.com> wrote:
> >
> > >False advertising is illegal, no?
> >
> > Yes, but this isn't that.

Thats what a trial of the lawsuit will determine, not your
pontification.

> >
> > >People are buying this phone on the premise on what they've read...not
> what
> > >they think will happen when they test it.
> >
> > I see no evidence of that.

The lawsuit is evidence of that.
Anonymous
January 20, 2005 3:46:27 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

In article <KzJHd.2935$m31.36642@typhoon.sonic.net>,
John Navas <jnavas@sonic.net> wrote:
>
> In <10uumg3kst0e23b@corp.supernews.com> on Thu, 20 Jan 2005 02:13:05 -0500,
> <xman@thedripper.com> wrote:
>
> >"John Navas" <jnavas@sonic.net> wrote in message
> >news:ws2Hd.2573$m31.31231@typhoon.sonic.net...
>
> >> I see no evidence of that.
>
> >From your responses, you're just a dick. Plain and simple.
>
> From your responses, you're just a rude jerk. Plain and simple.
>
> >You really could
> >care less if Verizon Wireless advertises certain functions of a Bluetooth
> >phone, but then cripple those same functions it advertises.
>
> It isn't advertising any crippled functions.
>
> >If you want to
> >actually blame the consumer because they didn't test it within 15 days and
> >completely disregard the false advertising still stands then you're pretty
> >much on the side of big brother and really wouldn't stick up for anyone if
> >they had a problem.
>
> There is no false advertising.

Thats what the lawsuit will determine, not your pontification.
Anonymous
January 27, 2005 12:14:44 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <jzwick3-C47601.06462020012005@news1.west.earthlink.net> on Thu, 20 Jan
2005 12:46:27 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:

>In article <KzJHd.2935$m31.36642@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> John Navas <jnavas@sonic.net> wrote:
>>
>> In <10uumg3kst0e23b@corp.supernews.com> on Thu, 20 Jan 2005 02:13:05 -0500,
>> <xman@thedripper.com> wrote:
>>
>> >"John Navas" <jnavas@sonic.net> wrote in message
>> >news:ws2Hd.2573$m31.31231@typhoon.sonic.net...
>>
>> >> I see no evidence of that.
>>
>> >From your responses, you're just a dick. Plain and simple.
>>
>> From your responses, you're just a rude jerk. Plain and simple.
>>
>> >You really could
>> >care less if Verizon Wireless advertises certain functions of a Bluetooth
>> >phone, but then cripple those same functions it advertises.
>>
>> It isn't advertising any crippled functions.
>>
>> >If you want to
>> >actually blame the consumer because they didn't test it within 15 days and
>> >completely disregard the false advertising still stands then you're pretty
>> >much on the side of big brother and really wouldn't stick up for anyone if
>> >they had a problem.
>>
>> There is no false advertising.
>
>Thats what the lawsuit will determine, not your pontification.

Fair enough: Thus far there hasn't been a showing of anything even remotely
close to false advertising, just vague claims. You can only pursue a case for
misrepresentation by showing: (1) statements with alleged misrepresentation
and (2) showing the representations in those statements to be false or
misleading. Since Verizon has disclosed what the Bluetooth implementation
would do, and since there hasn't been any showing of actual misrepresentation,
there can't be a case for misrepresentation.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
Anonymous
January 27, 2005 12:15:48 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <10v41ls88afgd06@corp.supernews.com> on Sat, 22 Jan 2005 02:54:34 -0500,
<xman@thedripper.com> wrote:

>You're still an idiot and really do sound like a broken record. At least I
>put a little spin on some of my posts and actually have a thought behind to
>some of the things I say. Idiot, if the lawsuit does pass and it does become
>some thing...what in the world are you going to say since all you seem to be
>able to say is "there is no false advertising". I know...you'll be able to
>say nothing since you really can't think on your own and you're actually too
>scared to even consider the fact that you could be wrong about some thing
>publicly.
>I guess time will tell....

It will indeed. I'm willing to bet that this doesn't even get certified as a
class action. Care to take me up on that? ;-)

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
Anonymous
January 27, 2005 12:16:44 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <jzwick3-347947.06450420012005@news1.west.earthlink.net> on Thu, 20 Jan
2005 12:45:11 GMT, Jack "FUDMEISTER" Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:

>> "John Navas" <jnavas@sonic.net> wrote in message
>> news:ws2Hd.2573$m31.31231@typhoon.sonic.net...
>
>> >
>> > In <10uljevl4l7g27c@corp.supernews.com> on Sun, 16 Jan 2005
>> 15:26:06 -0500,
>> > <xman@thedripper.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > >False advertising is illegal, no?
>> >
>> > Yes, but this isn't that.
>
>Thats what a trial of the lawsuit will determine, not your
>pontification.

You can only pursue a case for misrepresentation by showing: (1) statements
with alleged misrepresentation and (2) showing the representations in those
statements to be false or misleading. Since Verizon has disclosed what the
Bluetooth implementation would do, and since there hasn't been any showing of
actual misrepresentation, there can't be a case for misrepresentation.

>> > >People are buying this phone on the premise on what they've read...not
>> what
>> > >they think will happen when they test it.
>> >
>> > I see no evidence of that.
>
>The lawsuit is evidence of that.

A lawsuit isn't evidence of anything.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/&gt;

"A little learning is a dangerous thing." [Alexander Pope]
"It is better to sit in silence and appear ignorant,
than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." [Mark Twain]
January 28, 2005 2:49:37 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Of course we all know what will happen. Everything will settle out of the
court system because Verizon Wireless doesn't want the bad publicity.
"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:8LTJd.3825$m31.53202@typhoon.sonic.net...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <jzwick3-C47601.06462020012005@news1.west.earthlink.net> on Thu, 20 Jan
> 2005 12:46:27 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <KzJHd.2935$m31.36642@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> > John Navas <jnavas@sonic.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> In <10uumg3kst0e23b@corp.supernews.com> on Thu, 20 Jan 2005
02:13:05 -0500,
> >> <xman@thedripper.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >"John Navas" <jnavas@sonic.net> wrote in message
> >> >news:ws2Hd.2573$m31.31231@typhoon.sonic.net...
> >>
> >> >> I see no evidence of that.
> >>
> >> >From your responses, you're just a dick. Plain and simple.
> >>
> >> From your responses, you're just a rude jerk. Plain and simple.
> >>
> >> >You really could
> >> >care less if Verizon Wireless advertises certain functions of a
Bluetooth
> >> >phone, but then cripple those same functions it advertises.
> >>
> >> It isn't advertising any crippled functions.
> >>
> >> >If you want to
> >> >actually blame the consumer because they didn't test it within 15 days
and
> >> >completely disregard the false advertising still stands then you're
pretty
> >> >much on the side of big brother and really wouldn't stick up for
anyone if
> >> >they had a problem.
> >>
> >> There is no false advertising.
> >
> >Thats what the lawsuit will determine, not your pontification.
>
> Fair enough: Thus far there hasn't been a showing of anything even
remotely
> close to false advertising, just vague claims. You can only pursue a case
for
> misrepresentation by showing: (1) statements with alleged
misrepresentation
> and (2) showing the representations in those statements to be false or
> misleading. Since Verizon has disclosed what the Bluetooth implementation

> would do, and since there hasn't been any showing of actual
misrepresentation,
> there can't be a case for misrepresentation.
>
> --
> Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
> John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
!